Hi Berry,

I read this and then clicked on the link you put at the bottom.  I looked over that website and it just didn't feel right.  (Admittedly that's, by definition, a personal thing.)  I then did a little Internet "digging" on Scorcha Faal, the proported author if this piece.  The result is that I have some serious questions about the article's trustworthiness, as well as the author's authenticity.  With all of the psy-ops going on in the media and on the Internet, who's to know what's real anymore?  It seems obvious that there is some truth in the article, but psy-ops typically put out truth mixed with distortions or worse.  I'm not saying that this is part of a psy-op, but just raise the question. 

Anyhow, for an "alternative" view of who Scorcha Faal is, here's an aritcle on "Educate-Yourself": http://educate-yourself.org/cn/sorchafaaldisinfo15mar08.shtml

Lastly, Berry, I want to acknowledge your dedication to bringing a lot of significant things to everyone's attention in these forums.  So please don't read my doubts about this item as being a criticism of you.  You're doing a great job and I've loved many of your postings.

The best and highest to you and everyone,

Bob

Hi Bob,

Thanks for that, I read your link and yeah the name Scorcha Faal does look suss.......thanks for the reminder that we need to be alert and aware....disinformation is everywhere!.....

Thanks,

Jez

Thanks Bob, Jez and Berry.  This was a good lesson for me.  I started reading the article late last night and went to sleep before finishing it.  In the middle of the night I woke up and started thinking about the possibility of war and what I needed to prepare, what supplies should I save and so forth, making a plan of action.  What pains me the most is that children will suffer hunger and worst, so we must stock up on food.  Then I heard "myself" saying "Stop!  You are operating from fear."

So I did. 

We really, really, really don't know what the future holds, not even a few minutes from now!  This war has been "predicted" quite ofter for the past few years.  From my point of view, some people have been trying to make it happen but they've been preveted by... who knows what?  The people from Fox News keep trying to provoke an uprising against Obama, which is exactly what "they" would need in order to clamp down on everyone, no Internet, no communications between people, "preventive" arrest, etc., all the needed laws and facilities have been preppared... but, people have not taken the bait.  (Although, it is getting worse and worse, more difficult by the day.)  So, this is why we need to keep vibrating at this other frequency, so by resonance, our brothers and sister keep their kool, and by our actions with those we meet and have dealing with, we'll keep the flow going and growing, dispite the oposition efforts.

As far as I can tell, our job is to maintain that flow going, unwavering, regardless of whatever missguided actions the other parts of ourselves take.

Namaste, namaste, namaste.

Bob

Well, Bob, I'm with you where you come down on this matter, mentally and spiritually.  What you express seems to me to be a good guide -- like a compass.  It's so easy to lose a sense of direction and a sense of what's truly important in this storm of varying predictions and fear and uncertainty.  But I feel strongly that the "Elite" will not get what they want (as you point out, they're not getting the results that they surely expected by now), and that we will come out of this transition having begun a new phase in our personal and collective evolution. 

Even so, I don't think it's a mistake or a violation of the wonderfully positive attitude you've expressed to allow for some serious difficulties.  It doesn't feel to me that things will be easy in the coming period.  So, to my mind, stocking a little food and cash and so forth is just normal prudence in abnormal times.  But this may not be necessary or appropriate for everyone... I don't know.

But having done that, I'm forgetting about it and am just trying to live, trust, and take the next step with as much light in my mind and heart as possible -- as you've expressed so well. 

Attending to all that's good and positive (especially a connection to Something Higher -- call it what you will), but still with some attention to what's going on "out there".  I try, anyhow, given my obsessive nature.  It's about learning balance -- a major lesson for me in this lifetime.  It's funny, I notice that the more "dire" and confused things seem to be, the more light there seems to be in it all.  ...I can't even begin to understand that, but who needs to?  The day is cool here and the sun is shining.  Right now that's all that's important.

Take care,

Bob B.

I was familiar with other site's talking about Sorcha Faal and already knew she was controversial. It was never clear to me whether the people trashing her were the “informationists” or the “disinformationists”. What she writes about seems to always be consistent with what we observe externally.

I have been in other discussions where people are trashing Obama for being a member of the Trilateral Commission. Additionally Saturday Night Live just trashed Obama for not getting anything done. My point to this has been that Obama is not really master of his domain. This article supports that point quite well. That's why I am reluctant to dismiss the article so quickly.

Namaste,

Mark

we find Obama has been given the Nobel Peace prize. What are your views on that?

I'll hold my comment for now, since I'm allowing it to 'digest' a bit, but I'd love to hear some opinions.                        in One Light....onesong

Well... I'm not sure the Nobel Prize means much (it may in some cases); there have been many controversial people who have won it.   And I'm especially mistrustful of the Peace Prize.  Henry Kissinger won it in 1973, and many regard him as a war criminal.  (I do.)  With Obama's carryings-on (of the Bush war policies) in Iraq and Afghanistan and his support for increasing the Pentagon's budget, what logic could have gone into his being awarded the Peace Prize other than the logic of 1984 :  "War is Peace"?

Some people see Obama as a white knight who is just playing 'possum until the time is ripe for his move.  Mark, in his comment above, points out that Obama is not the master of his domain.  And I'm sure that's true.  After all, it was Bill Clinton who is said to have remarked that he hadn't realized before taking the job (of president) that he wouldn't be making the decisions.  So, whether Obama is a good guy who's trapped in the role of carrying out destructive policies designed by others, or whether he actually believes in what he's doing, the fact is that people are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the making of war, not peace.

Bob

Hi Folks-

This is my first post here. I finished the course about 6 months ago but missed the e-mail that the community had been formed! Hope there aren't others waiting out there for things to start up.

This story was fascinating and I really appreciate the post but.... I think it's mostly bs. To my mind the story is untrustworthy because it supports the fake right-left divide. It allows those who want to believe in Obama an out in the face of a record that is not any better than his predecessor's. I'm not ashamed of my  cynacism when it comes to this government and the mainstream media. I think it's a very good thing and there isn't enough of it amongst the general population. Obama gettting the nobel peace prize? I'm horrified!

Hi PLJ4ALL, great to see you are here!!  Yes, cynicism, one more interesting temptation to consider and test the benefits or lack thereof.  To continue on with the theme of personal opinions, I personally tend to steer away from the temptation of cynicism any more because, well maybe it is because I delved too deeply into it in the past.  All I know now is that I seek to remain liberated from any trappings my ego might wish to have me soaking in with head spinning and Heart ignored.  As for Obama, a similar thought to yours occured to me earlier today (since without even having to be cynical I know that there are some pretty saavy political games that go on behind big smiles in complete denial and compartmentalization).  What if the game this time around is to stir up the so called "other side" so much so that the democrats are left with no choice but to up the ante of their support of a current president, and in the psychological process of political polarization, completely miss and/or ignore the fact that Bush would have been doing virtually the very same thing that Obama has done and is doing since entering office as commander-in-chief.  I like Barack Obama.  He is one of the most likeable and coolest dudes I have ever had the pleasure of witnessing, but something quite hideous goes on in politics, like some kind of shadowy entity that forms from the ongoing denial and passing of the buck by so many politicians who are so self satisfied and certain they are doing an excellent and virtuous job.  It is an interesting socio-political phenomenon to study, but cynicism is just way too easy...  much more fun and satisfying to keep the fluid intelligence and Intelligent Heart protected by not binding to anything that would have me trapped in some form of static judgmental dogma in no time if I was not paying close enough attention, so damn easy to do, to fall prey to...  Anyway, welcome aboard!  May the discussion be lively and inspirational as they are on so many other Lightworker site right now...  Love/Light, and Peace with no opposite, Chris-E-Pooh

I am initially reluctant to re-enter this debate about Obama due to how it declined into argument last time around his election, but what the heck...  Elizabeth, are you speaking in general terms about cynicism, or are you saying that some of the comments in this thread are cynical?  When you come on that strong, as you and I and others here are very capable of, several things come to mind.  One is that this sort of dogmatic and judgmental tone drives people away from the discussion, and no sincere comment should be stifled or labeled as cynical or insincere..  Do you remember how you responded when we got into it over Obama?  You almost left this community!  And now you are virtually doing the same thing to others who have every right to form their opinion without fear or unease about someone throwing negative jabs at them in the name of spirituality.  If we wanted that we could go to church, LOL...  The other thing that comes to mind is that Obama, like God, requires no one's defense if he is geniune, and is worthy of discussion in light of how many times we have been fooled in the past by politicians from both sides of the aisle.  Your defense of Obama is the other side of the coin of those who vehemently defended Bush, and this is most likely exactly what the orchestrators of this political sham had planned all along, to keep one half of the country defending the current occupant of the white house, and the other in favor of crucifying him or her.  Obama could very well be just another 'assuming' pawn in the lineage of politicians looking for their chance to be in the white house.  The other thing that comes to mind is that the playing possum defense is wearing very thin.  I said before Obama was elected that we would know whether or not he is truly sincere if he brings the troops home from Iraq and does not escalate the war in Afghanistan.  In a very real way the cards are already face up on the table concerning Obama's sincerity or lack thereof.  Playing possum while young men and women are being thrown to the wolves in an ill conceived war is unacceptable.  If Bush were still in office would you be coming to his defense with the 'playing possum until the time is right' rationale?  Obama is a politician, and no more a saint than the next politician.  If you were to run that past Obama himself he would most likely smile and completely agree with that conclusion.  The jury is still out.  In the mean time we do well to allow others their place and opinion without feeling like an avid Obama supporter is going to call them a cynic for sharing their very sincere and heartfelt thoughts and feelings at this stage...  In the end, no politician requires our defense, for they are accountable to us, the people, and Obama has already failed us on several fronts concerning his electorial promises for change.  Is this really any surprise.  In any case, I have not seen any cynicism in any of the comments I have read in this thread, and no comment should be stifled by any of us...  We have been over this ground several times already, been there....  done that....  Riversong-ism-ness....  By the way, while I'm at it, holding Riversong in the Love and Light of the One Infinite Creator....  So Be it...  Be it So....

Love/Light, and Peace eternal, Chris

And holding you dear sister Elizabeth in the Love and Light of the One, the Infinite, the Creator of all us unique and wonderful fractals, extensions of, for the sake of infinite experience, no two being quite the same, ever, like the irrational numbers of Pi and Phi, and yet One, eternally One, Inviolately One....

i support the idea that once having been given the Nobel peace prize, he hopefully will be able to rise above the politics to find the integrity and strength of character to be the great man and great leader that some believe he already is. i didn't see Elizabeth's post, so can't respond to that. i read Chris' subsequent ones- i didn't bring it up to create discord (play nice children-mama said there'd be days like this!)

{no offense intended, only love}

my initial reaction to the announcement was the same as my husband's (which is unusual) "WHAT has he done to deserve it?" i mean Mother Theresa 'deserved' it...but...Creator knows what we cannot. the broader picture may be that Obama needs to see/believe himself the change we are meant to be, even in the midst of the political b*llshit he finds himself a part of. i'm sure it is more difficult than any of us imagine to wear his shoes at this point. i'm also sure there is some element of truth in the original post by Berry, regarding those who oppose him.

so...my prayer remains for integrity, honesty, trust, truth and transparency even in the darkest places (like politics) for "We the people" can't do it alone.

God/Creator/Source,give us the understanding we need to continue to work toward the highest good of all. wake our leaders and all those in places of power to the tremendous potential for good that exists in the depths of every human heart, even in the darkest times, let Light and goodness prevail. let people be fed, clothed, find shelter, work and communicate in ways that build community and promote sustainability for all, in all walks of life. see it done.                     kristyne

When the news of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize award was first brought up in this thread, initially (with my slow thinking), I was struggling to see the connection to this thread subject.

But now, I understand it. Let me put it in my own words:

The world is very much aware of Obama's up-hill battle. They are probably more aware than the general American populace. They want so much help him in any way they can. Being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize says:

1)We appreciate the dramatic change in course that you have taken.

2)We appreciate the up-hill battle that you face.

3)We are behind you and support you in any way we can.

Thus the peace prize is an answer to a “Nation in Trouble”.

I feel the world-wide love being beamed our way.

Namaste, Mark

Well, I just received a message from my good friend Jez lovingly and kindly asking me to consider the very real possibility that I was a bit too hard on my dear sister Elizabeth (AGAIN).  Elizabeth and I have a history of, well, maybe its just me who has a history of being offended by and then taking it out on, ohhh who friggin' knows ("and you know, its my own damn fault", yea Jimmy!!!), but forgive me Elizabeth if you feel I was a bit too harsh (AGAIN).  I may have over reacted, but I just plain saw the subtle accusation of cynicism as a condescending and insensitive dismissing slight in complete disregard of and for the opinions of all the others in this thread who were not showing outright support for Obama, but like I said to Jez, youz guyz don't need me to come to your defense, now do you!!!!  How magnanimously arrogant and presumptuous of me....  Ahhhhh, I feel better, how's bout youz guys, LOL....   yummie yummie yummie I've got love in my tummie, except when I am being a hard-on and being hard on someone, haaaaahahahaha (I think I can hear the theme to the good, bad and ugly!)....  "is there anybody out there"....  love that line from that song from that group where Syd went completely nuts (Richard Wright just passed recently, bless you Richard)....  have a wonderful weekend all you amazing fractals of the One!!!!!

LLP, chris-e-pooh, the guy you knew who was always stepping in doo doo, coo coo ca choo..... bye bye lovelies!!!!

There may be something to what you say, Onesong and Mark.   An old acquantance of mine feels that the Nobel committe is trying to empower Obama and thereby put the military sociopaths in their proper place on the power hierarchy so that he has a chance to do some good.  I'm not sure how likely this is, but I'm open to the possibility that they intended this and that he has it in him to break out and do some real good (although the balance of available evidence so far suggests to me that he may not).  We'll see what happens.  Avaaz says we should congratulate him and thereby further encourage him to do the right thing.  Maybe so.  And, yes, we should respect the fact that he has probably the toughest job in the world -- especially if he intends to buck the tide of power to do something really positive.  No matter which "side" he turns out to be on, I'm sure that our collective evolution will bump up the next big step soon.

Bob

The following is what I posted at ipeace, for the same discussion is being had in many other locations, and the views, like here, are mixed, with a leaning toward the positive hope that this is a good thing overall...

I have been a member of another Lightworker website for about 18 months now, my first, and there was/is a discussion on this going on where the views are mixed, many of them wondering the same as Michael, how does the nobel peace prize go to someone who is allowing the war in Afghanistan to be escalated by war-hungry military an political hawks. It is a very reasonable question. It could be that those in charge of awarding the peace prize are making a international political maneuver themselves, prompting nations to move in the direction of Peace and a nuke-free world. I hope that is what it is. It could be their way of trying to support Obama while so many in the US from the ultra redneck crazy extreme right want his head on a plate, along with a military leadership that has gone off the deep end. What can safely be said with confidence concerning accuracy is that we live in extraordinary times. I don't know how an award like this goes to someone who has already let some of his promises be broken, someone who awards banks with billions of dollars for their very destructive behavior, someone who escalates war in Afghanistan, a country that does not want foreign troops in it, and a country who's main attraction is pipeline territory and heroin production that the CIA and other clandestine groups have been involved with for profit, for black ops, for a very long time now, and we are to believe that while we are aware of these facts, Obama is not? I don't think so... But then again, maybe those awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama are overlooking these facts in favor of a grand political maneuver to try to get some very important things done by the will of the people worldwide. And if that is the case, then I understand, and approve, and hope like hell it works. We are in a period of chaos that will be followed by re-organization. How that plays out is anyone's guess, but I love that we are in it, for it is the only way that true change can ever happen, well, maybe not the only way, but surely the most probable way when it has to do with conscious intelligence at this level and density... So I am going to wait and see how this plays out, and respond the best I know how as it goes, and in the mean time (or unmean time), I will will for a world to come to its senses in a very quick and dramatic way that leads towards sanity and re-cognition of Peace and true Prosperity for ALL, not just the 1% ruling class of the current failing paradigm... Love/Light, and Peace beyond measure, with no opposite, Chris

Well done brothers and sisters!  I am impressed.  This is the first forum in which I see folks coming from different directions, opposites, with clear and intelligent views, and still manage to keep to our common ground.

Namaste (with a deep bow)

Bob

Chavez says Obama did "nothing" to deserve Nobel

2 hours ago
Loading... Share No Thanks Must Read?Thank YouYes     28
// <![CDATA[
if (tsNode = $('timestamp')) window.setTimeout(function() {
tsNode.innerHTML = elapsedTimestamp('2009-10-11T12:56:00.000-04:00', tsNode.innerHTML);
}, 100);
// ]]>

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez talks to media during a news conference in...

• Email Story
• Discuss
• Print

• Digg
• Del…
• Plaxo

CARACAS — Venezuela's socialist leader Hugo Chavez said on Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama had done nothing beyond wishful thinking to earn the Nobel Peace Prize.

Chavez, who has mixed praise for Obama personally with criticism of his government's "imperialist" policies, said he thought it was a mistake when he read the U.S. leader had won.

"What has Obama done to deserve this prize? The jury put store on his hope for a nuclear arms-free world, forgetting his role in perpetuating his battalions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his decision to install new military bases in Colombia," Chavez wrote in a column.

"For the first time, we are witnessing an award with the nominee having done nothing to deserve it: rewarding someone for a wish that is very far from becoming reality."

Chavez said giving Obama the Nobel award was like giving a baseball pitcher a prize simply for saying he was going to win 50 games and strike out 500 batters.

Although mild compared to some of the virulent rhetoric he often uses against the United States, Chavez's criticism contrasted with the assessment of his mentor, Fidel Castro.

The former Cuban leader said it was "a positive measure" that implied criticism of the "genocidal" policies of Obama's predecessors in the White House.

Though Caracas and Washington have hostile political relations, the United States remains the main buyer of oil from the OPEC member nation.

Hi Guys-

I'm kind of amazed and wondering if you all actually took the same course I did. The course that includes all about 9/11 truth and the bankers running this country since 1913? Am I the only one here that never assumed Obama is a good guy? That we are being fed a good cop/bad cop game? I judge people by their fruits, not their words. The NSA continues to spy on our phone calls, Guantanamo may have closed but the prisoners are not released, if they wanted to really fix the economy, they could have given that same amount of bailouts to those who were going to loose their houses, not the bankers, wars continue to rage with threats of more war in Iran anf escalation in Afghanistan. The fascist program is continuing and didn't skip a beat, did you guys see what happened in Pittsburgh? I don't believe the negative stuff about Obama is part of a program, it's real. I trust and listen to researchers such as Webster Tarpley and Alex Jones that look beyond the left/right paradigm.

Wendy

Hi Again folks,

Perhaps this article will do a better job of expressing my concerns about our country and lack of faith in our current government, Obama being just one piece of a larger picture. I understand that folks don't want to wallow in negativity and certainly unfounded cynacism is a path toward dis-functionality. But we need to face up to how bad things are or certainly we can't fix them.

Wendy

MANIPULATED AMERICA:  DIVIDED WE FALL

"From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back...A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey."...FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds in the American Conservative

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER

Top US officials are reported to have been selling US nuclear weapons secrets around the world as part of a spy ring which includes members of Congress from both parties.  These and other accusations are broadly substantiated, but only by the American Conservative and newspapers around the world, including significant revelations about a 9/11 coverup.  How can this be done in a "free country?"

Massive penetration of, not only Congress, but the Pentagon and State Department are outlined in detail, naming those involved and how it was done.  Foreign intelligence agencies from Israel, Turkey and Pakistan, regularly accessed highly classified information and sold it around the world, even to terrorist organizations.

If 9/11 was a terrorist attack, inside job or planned to drag the US into an endless war in the Middle East for some other purpose, the information needed to plan the attacks was sold or given away by high ranking Americans who were under investigation by the FBI until 2001.

That investigation was ended by the Bush Administration and buried using States Secret Privilege, leading to the biggest espionage disaster in American history. This doctrine, since 2001, has been used to end nearly every aspect of accountability in our government.  Any information can be withheld from Congessional investigations, such as with the 9/11 Commission and any whistleblower can be silenced, even those reporting threats to national security, as with Sibel Edmonds.  

 "John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.”"

Since 2001 and continuing thru with President Obama, a regime of suppression and disinformation has taken over in Washington, totally unaccountable to Congress or the people.  With the destruction of any ability for a people to make an informed decision through state secrecy laws without oversight and limit, there can be no democratic rule.

What are the basic mechanisms to overthrow a democracy? 

If you control three institutions, you control a nation.  First is the press.  If you can manipulate the news, suppressing stories, stopping investigations and protecting "flawed" individuals while making the public look under their beds for imaginary enemies, your power is almost unlimited.

Second is government itself.  If you can control government by putting the real power in the hands of a few committee chairmen or key "deal makers" and can flood the system with dirty money, there will be no real investigations, only coverups and no real laws, only raids on the public treasury by the powerful while crumbs are passed out to others.

 Third is public opinion.  Turning an intelligent electorate into a howling mob requires an endless series of both outlandish conspiracies and real threats, the truth behind all being misdirected through a concerted effort to divide a populace and keep them at each other, even to the brink of civil war, all to protect the economic cabal growing fat off "terror war" and "deregulation," a buzzword for massive theft.

When former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, reported that Osama bin Laden was an active US asset up to the second the planes hit the twin towers on 9/11, she was put under Patriot Act gag orders by Attorney General John Ashcroft that lasted for years.  Now that she is speaking, laying out facts supported by key FBI and CIA experts, nothing is hitting our papers.  How bad are the facts being kept from us?

"The 2008 Sunday Times series detailed Edmonds' allegations that Bush's Under Secretary of State Grossman --- the third-highest ranking official in the State Department, after Colin Powell and Richard Armitage --- worked closely with both the Turks and Israel in obtaining and selling U.S. nuclear weapons technology on the worldwide black market, and that he had even tipped off Turkish diplomatic colleagues about the true identify of then-covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson's front company, Brewster Jennings, several years before the operation was named publicly by columnist Robert Novak"

While we were pretending to use our Patriot Acts to defend America through torturing suspects to get the truth, we are learning that much more of that coerced testimony may have been gathered to support a wide coverup of government crimes, many at the highest level.  The American Conservative goes on:

These are some of the things Edmond has sworn to under oath, taken from an interview with former CIA official Philip Geraldi printed in the American Conservative:

PHILIP GIRALDI: We were very interested to learn of your four-hour deposition in the case involving allegations that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accepted money from the Turkish government in return for political favors. You provided many names and details for the first time on the record and swore an oath confirming that the deposition was true.

Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let’s start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.

SIBEL EDMONDS: During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. Because the FBI had had no Turkish translators, these files were archived, but were considered to be very important operations. As part of the background, I was briefed about why these operations had been initiated and who the targets were.

Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.

Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.

Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.

GIRALDI: So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He’s rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for “Turkish interests”—both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual’s phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.

EDMONDS: Correct.

GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money…

EDMONDS: $14,000

GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It’s also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”

EDMONDS: Yes, that’s correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

GIRALDI: Makovsky is now working for the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank.

EDMONDS: Yes. Lantos was at the time probably the most outspoken supporter of Israel in Congress. AIPAC would take out the information from Lantos that was relevant to Israel, and they would give the rest of it to their Turkish associates. The Turks would go through the leftovers, take what they wanted, and then try to sell the rest. If there were something relevant to Pakistan, they would contact the ISI officer at the embassy and say, “We’ve got this and this, let’s sit down and talk.” And then they would sell it to the Pakistanis.

GIRALDI: ISI—Pakistani intelligence—has been linked to the Pakistani nuclear proliferation program as well as to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

So the FBI was monitoring these connections going from a congressman to a congressman’s assistant to a foreign individual who is connected with intelligence to other intelligence people who are located at different embassies in Washington. And all of this information is in an FBI file somewhere?

EDMONDS: Two sets of FBI files, but the AIPAC-related files and the Turkish files ended up converging in one. The FBI agents believed that they were looking at the same operation. It didn’t start with AIPAC originally. It started with the Israeli Embassy. The original targets were intelligence officers under diplomatic cover in the Turkish Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. It was those contacts that led to the American Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and then to AIPAC fronting for the Israelis. It moved forward from there.

GIRALDI: So the FBI was monitoring people from the Israeli Embassy and the Turkish Embassy and one, might presume, the Pakistani Embassy as well?

EDMONDS: They were the secondary target. They got leftovers from the Turks and Israelis. The FBI would intercept communications to try to identify who the diplomatic target’s intelligence chief was, but then, in addition to that, there are individuals there, maybe the military attaché, who had their own contacts who were operating independently of others in the embassy.

GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?

EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.

GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?

EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.

GIRALDI: RAND does highly classified research for the U.S. government. So they were setting up these people for recruitment as agents or as agents of influence?

EDMONDS: Yes, and the RAND sources would be paid peanuts compared to what the information was worth when it was sold if it was not immediately useful for Turkey or Israel. They also had sources who were working in some midwestern Air Force bases. The sources would provide the information on CD’s and DVD’s. In one case, for example, a Turkish military attaché got the disc and discovered that it was something really important, so he offered it to the Pakistani ISI person at the embassy, but the price was too high. Then a Turkish contact in Chicago said he knew two Saudi businessmen in Detroit who would be very interested in this information, and they would pay the price. So the Turkish military attaché flew to Detroit with his assistant to make the sale.

GIRALDI: We know Grossman was receiving money for services.

EDMONDS: Yes. Sometimes he would give money to the people who were working with him, identified in phone calls on a first-name basis, whether it’s a John or a Joe. He also took care of some other people, including his contact at the New York Times. Grossman would brag, “We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names.”

GIRALDI: Did Feith and Perle receive any money that you know of?

EDMONDS: No.

GIRALDI: So they were doing favors for other reasons. Both Feith and Perle were lobbyists for Turkey and also were involved with Israel on defense contracts, including some for Northrop Grumman, which Feith represented in Israel.

EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger’s group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker’s group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help.

Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.

Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client’s conditions were not met by the Bush administration.

GIRALDI: Armitage was deputy secretary of state at the time Scowcroft and Baker were running their own consulting firms that were doing business with Turkey. Grossman had just become undersecretary, third in the State hierarchy behind Armitage.

You’ve previouly alluded to efforts by Grossman, as well as high-ranking officials at the Pentagon, to place Ph.D. students. Can you describe that in more detail?

EDMONDS: The seeding operation started before Marc Grossman arrived at the State Department. The Turkish agents had a network of Turkish professors in various universities with access to government information. Their top source was a Turkish-born professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was useful because MIT would place a bunch of Ph.D. or graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos, and some of them were able to work for the Air Force. He would provide the list of Ph.D. students who should get these positions. In some cases, the Turkish military attaché would ask that certain students be placed in important positions. And they were not necessarily all Turkish, but the ones they selected had struck deals with the Turkish agents to provide information in return for money. If for some reason they had difficulty getting a secuity clearance, Grossman would ensure that the State Department would arrange to clear them.

In exchange for the information that these students would provide, they would be paid $4,000 or $5,000. And the information that was sold to the two Saudis in Detroit went for something like $350,000 or $400,000.

GIRALDI: This corruption wasn’t confined to the State Department and the Pentagon—it infected Congress as well. You’ve named people like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a registered agent of the Turkish government. In your deposition, you describe the process of breaking foreign-originated contributions into small units, $200 or less, so that the source didn’t have to be reported. Was this the primary means of influencing congressmen, or did foreign agents exploit vulnerabilities to get what they wanted using something like blackmail?

EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.

Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.

But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

GIRALDI: So we have a pattern of corruption starting with government officials providing information to foreigners and helping them make contact with other Americans who had valuable information. Some of these officials, like Marc Grossman, were receiving money directly. Others were receiving business favors: Pentagon associates like Doug Feith and Richard Perle had interests in Israel and Turkey. The stolen information was being sold, and the money that was being generated was used to corrupt certain congressmen to influence policy and provide still more information—in many cases information related to nuclear technology.

EDMONDS: As well as weapons technology, conventional weapons technology, and Pentagon policy-related information.

GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11…

EDMONDS: I don’t know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli’s group, Fethullah Gülen.

GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.

EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?

GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.

EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.

GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated. What do you think the chances are that the Obama administration will try to end this criminal activity?

EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA’s wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees. (end)

Our questions regarding Edmonds and the extent of what her charges mean are several:

1. How can an FBI investigation of this scope be ended so quickly without any information reaching the public?  We have come to believe that everything is leaked?  How is such control maintained? 
2. When a story like this is broken, why is there no followup investigation by the FBI, Congress or any attempt by investigative reporters, outside a few, to tell the American people the truth?
3. Why has President Obama kept the same repressive and illegal policies in place that were used by the Bush administration?

We are well beyond conspiracy theory.  With the ability of our government to silence this story, which undermines the official versions of nearly everything from 9/11 to the most basic aspects of our national security, can any version of anything, investigated or not, commissions or not, ever be taken as more than part of the real conspiracy behind the conspiracies?

We have long accepted that our government was for sale to the highest bidder and that our press sold its soul after 9/11 for the privilege of being fed lies and continual access to more of the same.  Anyone breaking with the crowd was cut off, denied access and pushed out.

A government operating in secret is, in itself, a conspiracy.  Everyone working to stifle open government, end challenges to government power and continue down this path is a part of this conspiracy.  They are working against, not only the idea of democracy, but against the lives of everyone living in America.  This has left Americans subject to war for profit, rigged elections, economic slavery at the hands of financial pirates and the Obama administrations willingness to continue Bush era policies to impoverish working Americans.

The saddest part of this is the willingness of millions of Americans to join in to silence any movement for a free government.  Under the guise of patriotism, extremist groups, funded and organized, sometimes publicly, sometimes secretly, by special interest and supported by massive press organizations, some under foreign control,

Groups clamoring for "freedom," sometimes armed, are working feverishly on behalf of war profiteers, foreign spy agencies and criminal elements in our power elite.  Why is suppressing the truth about 9/11 a way of making us free?  Why is challenging the oil and defense cartels considered fascism? 

The real goal is power, economic power.  Stealing oil, running drugs and looting our defense budget is only part of it.  With continual talk about conspiracies, Zionists, Socialists and endless cabals running a secret government, the real power, the multinational corporations and banking consortiums that control the Federal Reserve system, set oil and commodity prices, manipulate currencies set the course of human history, all unseen, have been around for decades.

Governments come and go, elections, real or rigged, assassinations, coups, none of it means much.  Even the most secure democracy can be taken down by a handful of dedicated men, be they terrorists, spies or foreign agents.  9/11 proved that.

If only the intelligent can see and understand the danger, then the real cabal attacks the intelligent as "liberal" and "weak."

If the patriotic and brave become a danger, send them to war or give them an imaginary enemy, fill the news with warnings and alerts. 

If an investigation starts, channel it into a pet "paid off" Congressman or two and feed it lies.  Lying is now an honorable part of our national secuity effort.

If someone stands up, what happens?  With Edmonds, John Ashcroft issued executive orders to have her silenced.  Others are called "truthers" as a way of discrediting them.  How have we sunk to the point where asking for the truth can discredit someone?

If a story threatens to break, debunkers, agents of the cabal, jump on it immediately.  They come in two flavors:

1. Debunkers present wild and implausible explanations attacking eye witness testimony, science and even video evidence using sarcasm and backed by powerful organizations.  Debunkers need prove nothing, only claim, with no accountability, that they have "debunked."
2. Debunkers also join any investigation but lead it to the "Twilight Zone."  Every legitimate story is dumped on the door of "Zionists" or space aliens by this type of debunker.  They take plausible attacks on government lies and poison them with insane speculation in order to discredit anyone asking for a legitimate investigation.

 Today, as usual, America is divided and moving toward a period of domestic discord and even home grow terrorism.  Our military forces have become a prime recruiting ground for the corporate cabal.  Every group that is easily influenced and easily misinformed, military, police, gun owners or those in isolated rural areas, are subject to wild stories of race war, imaginary Communist takeovers or worldwide Jewish conspriacies.

Whatever is blown up, a nuclear plant, a famous bridge or monument, the result will be the same:

• More oppressive laws
• More defense spending
• More taxes or more debt
• More dead American soldiers
• More high prices for gas
• More and more pundits on TV crying about socialism

It doesn't take a genius to understand any of this.  We love watching movies and TV shows about government conspiracies idential to the one we really seem to have.  Where is the line?  How much has to be lies before we have become the thing we fear most of all, a police state?

Would we even know?

Senior Editor, Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on political and social issues. 

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Veterans Today ! Sign up now !

VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE

Hi Wendy, no, we are all up to date on what Obama could possibly, even probably be.  What you are witnessing (to some degree anyway) is the same phenomenal thing that happened when GW became president, and half the nation couldn't believe the other half was so far gone as to think that GW had any of their concerns at heart or mind...  Now it is the democrats that have, to some degree, gone right off the deep end toward the same romantic notion lala land that the Bush supporters went to, and now the Bush supporters would like to see Obama's head on a plate, even though he is basically doing the same as Bush would be doing had Bush or some other republican remained in office.  These geopolitical masters have this game down to a science, obviously, as those in the US are proving so perfectly by acting like emotional sheep with little to no common sense...

You might say that those at the gathering spot are so up to date about those things you are wondering about that many of us have moved away from the 9-11 Truth movement (that has gotten no one anywhere but frustrated and depressed, even arguing among themselves now in the huge rift that happened in the 9-11 Scholars for Truth movement a few years ago).  So many here are actually looking at how we might consciously move toward transcending the present despotic controller ruling class paradigm instead of fighting it.  Show me one time in history where a a revolution changed the current/ancient ruling class paradigm and I will jump back into the revolution mentality...  And, during Obama's run for the presidency we had a lively and somewhat heated discussion about who Obama really is, a portion of the G-spot vehemently defending the presumed glory and good intentions of Obama, and another portion discussing the road that brought Barack Obama to this place in time to be the perfect candidate to fool the people on the left, while carrying on with a consistent agenda that both sides of the aisle are now dedicated and committed to, all controlled by some very powerful money house interests that control where wars will be and why geopolitically, while financing both sides of the contest, for war is still the best game in town for huge profits to be made.  The discussion became quite lively, with one or two threatening to leave the gathering spot as part of the fallout, so Obama has been an interesting phenomenon to date..  Even just recently with the heated discussion about whether or not someone is "cynical" or "jaded", just because they are discussing some things about Obama's record to date that does not look anything like his promises for change (gee, what a surprise!  oops, that sounded cynical, LOL).

I am taking the position (even though I still enter the debate about Obama from time to time) that we need to find another way, a way that has always been there for us to take, the collective and combined intentions of millions of Lightworkers and Peacemakers around the world who are looking past all this distracting BS nonsense toward the world and universe they choose, towards the power of intention, especially collective harmonized intention for Peace and Prosperity for all on Gaia.  So don't make the mistake of thinking that those discussing stuff on the G-spot are unaware of all that you are wondering about...  it is very possible, even probable that you would be blown away by how much each of us know about all that is going on in this current dying paradigm, but choose not to discuss much anymore after having discussed it and discussed it ad nauseum...  In fact, if you look back far enough at some of the other older forum posts from a few years ago you will find many of these discussions, and if you comment in one of them, they will come to the front of the line on the front page of the G-spot....

Love/Light, and Peace with no opposite, Chris

Hi Chris-

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation and your patience and I agree with everything you said. Yes,  I think we all need to find a way to drop out, step asside and create our own world. I think the Amish are a good model.

Wendy

What a perfect example Wendy!!!  It made me weep with appreciation when I saw how they handled that bizarre multiple murder in their community...  What a perfect representation they became for transcending the usual response, so inspiring...  If we become a world dominated by that behavior by so many personal decisions to do so, there would be nothing that the ruling class could do to steer us away from that new paradigm, what the Venus Project calls a worldwide "resource-based economy" with true concern for every individual....  So perfect that you brought that up!!!!

LLP, Chris